wellygary: You are in the wrong section ( that's for parks with a barrier arm) the Pay and Display clauses are at the Top

IN THE EVENT THAT:

Your vehicle does not display a current valid window pass or prepaid ticket so that the date and expiry time are clearly visible, you agree you are parked unlawfully and we may issue a breach notice ("the notice") requiring you to pay within 21 days, $65.00 costs of enforcing the conditions of this carpark.

You are issued a notice and you do not pay the sums specified therein within 21 days of date of issue of the notice, then we will send an additional reminder notice and you agree to pay the further sum of $20.00 to cover our administrative cost.

What's the difference between pay and display vs. barrier arm that more than doubles the 'infringement' cost? I would be refusing to pay on the basis that their listed enforcement costs are grossly overstated and unreasonable, and do not take into account real losses incurred.

mattwnz: Who actually owns many of these large parking companies, I had heard that they were offshore owned.

I believe Wilson are Singaporean owned and have a reputation for this sort of thing.

A former colleague of mine several years ago had a parking arrangement with Wilson where they committed to providing video surveillance in the vicinity. When his vehicle got damaged do you think they were willing and able to provide the video footage? Nope.

Quite frankly I find it easier to just take the bus than mess around with this sort of thing.

I got a $65 fine from Wilson's (via PESNZ) a couple of years ago. I wrote in disputing their authority to: a. set a fine in the first place b. issue parking tickets

I also pointed out the worst they could possibly claim in respect of my alleged infringement was breach of contract which amounts to liquidated damages. I then asked for proof that they had lost the amount of money they claimed and finished off by stating if they couldn't provide the proof I would be more than happy for this matter to go before the disputes tribunal.

A week or so went by then I got a letter advising they had decided to waive the fine. I'll have a hunt round later and see if still have a copy of my original letter and will post it here if I do.

The Downtown carpark may be cheaper, but last time I parked there, my car got smashed into, smashed the driver window and took a pile of things out of my car. No security on at the time and it turned out that the security cameras are only focused on the ramps. As I said before, parking in the open by the Maritime Museum on the viaduct is cheaper if you can get a park and its out in the open.

Dratsab: I got a $65 fine from Wilson's (via PESNZ) a couple of years ago. I wrote in disputing their authority to: a. set a fine in the first place b. issue parking tickets

I also pointed out the worst they could possibly claim in respect of my alleged infringement was breach of contract which amounts to liquidated damages. I then asked for proof that they had lost the amount of money they claimed and finished off by stating if they couldn't provide the proof I would be more than happy for this matter to go before the disputes tribunal.

A week or so went by then I got a letter advising they had decided to waive the fine. I'll have a hunt round later and see if still have a copy of my original letter and will post it here if I do.

I assume that even tho they state a set amount in their T&C's - that amount is irrelevant (as it would obviously exceed liquidated damaged)?

SaltyNZ: I would go to the disputes tribunal just to annoy them. Their entire operation is structured such that you won't be bothered 'wasting your time' fighting them, so they make on you (as someone else mentioned above, pay & display is a rort because it basically forces you to overpay). My opinion of parking and towing companies is that they are all --libelous verbiage redacted--.

Edit - oh, and I should add, at the least they will have to send someone out to defend themselves. You get a small revenge just by having to disrupt that person's day.

//Wow I'm in a good mood today, aren't I?

The other option is to take the issue up with Fair Go. That will cause Wilson't much more grief - adverse publicity, lawyers costs, and the downstream hassles from having tens of thousands of people told about their legal rights, how to dispute such "fines", and when to take Wilson's to the Disputes Tribunal.

For what its worth, I had an issue with a parking infringement with Wilson's.

Basically, I parked in one of their structures, went to pay for my early bird parking. I went through the payment process etc. and the machine froze, it then proceeded to go to "out of service" with no alternative means to pay and didn't spit out a ticket.I checked my bank account and saw there was a hold on the money from Wilson's for the amount I would be paying, which is generally what happens when you pay.So I went to work thinking I had paid.

The phone service, which they advise you to ring, was also not open at this point as I was an hour/2 hours early, they didn't open till 9/9.30.

I simply left the car park and went to work and came back to a parking fine of $65.

I lodged a complaint on their website and was unhappy with their reply like you are. I rang them and didn't get through to someone who I could talk to about the whole situation. So I actually had to go to their office in the CBD to talk to someone. They quickly saw the error of their ways and wrote the fine off.

the long and short of it is, if you cant get through on the phone, go visit their office and take whatever evidence/documents you have with you and remain cool. I could so have easily torn strips off the staff there because they were seemingly unhelpful.. but remain persistent and they definitely have people there who can answer your questions.

It really shouldnt be so hard, but unfortunately this was the only way I got a result.

ajobbins: I assume that even tho they state a set amount in their T&C's - that amount is irrelevant (as it would obviously exceed liquidated damaged)?

The Frustrated Contracts Act spells this out in section 3. Subsection 2 is the relevant part and essentially states the party to whom a sum is payable (Wilson Parking in this case) may recover a part or whole of the amount payable (including expenses incurred in the performance of the contract) as long as they are not an amount in excess of the expenses incurred.

Wilson's are not doing this, they're imposing a set fine...without statutory authority. To prove they lost, for example, $4 in parking fees would be relatively straight-forward. To claim they lost a further $61 through the "enforcement" actions of their child company (Parking Enforcement Services New Zealand - who contract out to numerous other carparks throughout NZ, btw) is, at best, highly dubious.

I'd like to see them prove it. However, I think they're more likely to waive a fine than potentially reveal the scale of extra income they're generating.

ajobbins: I assume that even tho they state a set amount in their T&C's - that amount is irrelevant (as it would obviously exceed liquidated damaged)?

The Frustrated Contracts Act spells this out in section 3. Subsection 2 is the relevant part and essentially states the party to whom a sum is payable (Wilson Parking in this case) may recover a part or whole of the amount payable (including expenses incurred in the performance of the contract) as long as they are not an amount in excess of the expenses incurred.

Wilson's are not doing this, they're imposing a set fine...without statutory authority. To prove they lost, for example, $4 in parking fees would be relatively straight-forward. To claim they lost a further $61 through the "enforcement" actions of their child company (Parking Enforcement Services New Zealand - who contract out to numerous other carparks throughout NZ, btw) is, at best, highly dubious.

I'd like to see them prove it. However, I think they're more likely to waive a fine than potentially reveal the scale of extra income they're generating.

But why isn't the commerce commission stomping down on this sort of thing if they are only allowed to claim for actual expenses incurred. If it is operated by an overseas company, then all this money being generated this way is stripping NZ of it's wealth.Maybe the commerce commission don't received enough complaints about it, and as it is am amount that people think, I'll just pay it to be rid of it, many people probably can't be bothered spending their time. eg $65 vs 1-2 hours of time.